Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

That made me chuckle! A great thing to see on forums is two people going at each other. Usually some genuine concern is being expressed and sometimes we even get lucky enough to see one or both get some better idea of why the other thinks they way they do.

I have to admit I’m finding it very hard to understand what it is Nick thinks or why he thinks it. I’m not entirely convinced he’s here to preach, yet some of his words have been just as tainted with venom as davidm’s.

It would be more productive, I believe, if Nick stuck to one point at a time rather than weaving some vague notion of something together and insinuating x,y or z whlist diverting from any particular item of investigation. On the one hand he seems to be arguing about some law that doesn’t exist and on the other he’s questioning the difference between scientific definitions of “life” and equating it with human consciousness. More precise and focus on the latter area may yield some common ground if they’re willing to work it out rather than sling poop at each other.

Anyway, I think conflict is good stuff for the “soul” as long as it can be worked past at some point.

Note: fully aware of how patrionizing I’m being. Just hoping it will stop any possible looming “ban”. It does seem Nick is coming here from a philosophical stance so he may not realise this is primarily a “science” site and so attitudes here will reflect that.

I have to admit I’m finding it very hard to understand what it is Nick thinks or why he thinks it. I’m not entirely convinced he’s here to preach, yet some of his words have been just as tainted with venom as davidm’s.

I appreciate people who have both a spiritual and scientific mind. Those like Jacob Needleman, Simone Wei;l, amd Basarab Nicolescu are and were all that way. We need these people and those striving to have that same intellectual and emotionall freedom

Perhaps you are reacting to the expression "super c_nts" I used in describing cultuarl influences on young girls. This isn't preaching but a psychological question we shouldn't be afraid to confront. why pussy foot around a serious question. Even laid back NPR has written on this cultural influence without saying anything.

As students head back to school, teachers can find themselves face to face with teenagers clinging to their summer styles. Commentator Annmarie Kelly Harbaugh knows — thanks to an experience with a student a few years ago — that the boundary between what is and is not appropriate school clothing can be a bit blurry.

The bottom line is it cannot be discussed. Institutions just pass the buck and hide behind the word appropriate which is meaningless. What does modern culture want these girls to look like? Is there a better description than mine? Why do we want them to look like that? These are questions that should be discussed. What do parents want young girls in school to look like? Should they be featuring their head and heart or just their their behinds? The sad thing is that this question cannot be discussed intelligently without first beginning with what respect for life and its cycles mean. So who suffers; it is the young ones who need to feel meaning but are surrounded by people who have forgotten what it is to "feel" so argue what "appropriate" means. Since this is our cultural situation it is obvious how far we are from objective conscience being accepted as a cultural goal. It isn't appropriate.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

It would be more productive, I believe, if Nick stuck to one point at a time rather than weaving some vague notion of something together and insinuating x,y or z whlist diverting from any particular item of investigation. On the one hand he seems to be arguing about some law that doesn’t exist and on the other he’s questioning the difference between scientific definitions of “life” and equating it with human consciousness. More precise and focus on the latter area may yield some common ground if they’re willing to work it out rather than sling poop at each other.

You miss the essential question which is the objective difference between fetus a day before birth and a three day old baby and why the three day old is protected while the fetus can be aborted at the desire of the mother. We see that we don't know. The rest is just argument about appropriate decisions but the bottom line is that there is no objective difference that warrants life or death for a healthy fetus and a three day old baby.

I'm looking at this like a chess player. I'm trying to first see the whole position over the board rather than superficially arguing details. This is a minority view but I think a necessary one if our species is to survive.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Moved to Odds and ends forum, where we can range a bit farther from a specific topic and with less restrictions on posting format. Check here to see if new posts - this forum doesn't appear in the New Posts queue. Basic rules of decorum still apply, and bringing IN A DISPUTE FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE is a nono. Thanks.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Philosophy worthy of the name is not possible with such people in charge. Never let common sense piss off a mod. Simone’s common sense pissed off a lot of people. Philosophy as the love of wisdom requires emotional impartiality. Secularism is peculiar in that it believes itself superior so has become increasingly emotionally hostile towards the essence of religion which it doesn't understand. So those like me who bring up ideas associated with Plato and Plotinus must be rejected even violently enough to piss off mods.

Secularism, or any ism, doesn't "believe" anything. Only individual humans can have beliefs. Or be hostile, or not. Some who hold with secularism may be hostile to religion, but that doesn't mean that secularism is inherently a system that foments hostility. How anyone, as a secularist, views a religion is very much dependent on their own experience, temperament, and ruminations over its value and how various societal rights should be respected.

Please discuss the topic, and respond to arguments, and not Strawmen, rather than make comments on some hypothesized emotional state of an entire group of people. That direction lies only bigotry and sophistry.

BTW, your worshipful tone regarding Weil conveys to me that you are not yourself "emotionally impartial" in your own approach to philosophy.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Personally I don't believe a fetus achieves sentience/consciouness/self awareness, etc., until some time after birth. So even a three day old infant is far less aware than a rabbit or mouse. A fertilized egg, of course, is no more than any other bacteria etc. So I have no conflict with abortion at any stage. Putting a "stop" at birth, then, is purely arbitrary and is 100% about appeasing base primitive instincts of the people around.

In fact, from a moral and ethical stance, I am far more troubled by an expressed interest in a seemingly desire to suppress the freedom of expression, etc., in young women by imposing restraints on what they can wear. When you get down to it, it is this Nick and people like him who seem to be asserting and inserting an unavoidable sexual nature and value to clothing. It's their hangup, not the kids that causes a problem. Should people like that get their return to Gilead we can fully expect an increased presence of frustration, aggression, violence, suicides, etc. I have no trouble seeing Nick and others like him as angry, frustrated, even hate-filled people so how can he expect I or any others would want to live like him or adopt his views? They don't seem to be making his life better or happier and I also don't see these views as being any more rational or moral, etc.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

The topic cannot be seriously discussed until people appreciate what prevents it. What prevents a person from admitting that they don’t know what life is and why it should be respected. Why pretend to know what we don’t know?

Secularism is dedicated to the goal of freedom from religious influence. Naturally secularists will struggle against cultural religious influences.

Finally, socio-cultural secularism entails perhaps the most ubiquitous form or secularism: the weakening or diminishing of religion in society, in day-to-day life. We’re talking things like more stores being open on Sunday, people spending more time on the internet than studying the Bible, fewer people seeking to be priests or nuns, television shows or Broadway musicals making fun of religion with little backlash, and so on. At root, socio-cultural secularism is both a socio-historical and demographic phenomenon whereby more and more people are caring less and less about religion. It involves greater numbers of people in a given society living their lives in a decidedly secular manner, utterly oblivious or indifferent to supernatural things like God, sin, salvation, heaven, or hell, and being distinctly disinterested in religious rituals and activities, and being less inclined to include or consider religion as a significant or even marginal component of their identity.

This raises the obvious question that cannot be discussed in modern philosophy: does secularism throw the baby out with the bath water? Must the goal of secularism eliminate what is essential for the potential for a free society? If so, is there a way to eliminate religious influence without becoming hostile to it?

I don’t worship Simone. She just has the intelligence and courage to say what is necessary to be said. Many men in public life are afraid to do it.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divinethe Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

What if she is right and secularism and its intolerance of religious influences eliminates all the influences which lead to opening the mind to experience higher mind or noesis? Why not appreciate her? Who else is saying it? As we lose the ability to feel respect for life as a whole why not just kill what those in authority tell us to kill?

So the sad reality is that since we lack understanding and even an awareness of what creates it, we are doomed to follow the mechanical cycles of life described in Ecclesiastes 3 including war and peace. There doesn't seem to be a way to avoid it.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Forest_Dump » March 16th, 2019, 11:57 am wrote:Personally I don't believe a fetus achieves sentience/consciouness/self awareness, etc., until some time after birth. So even a three day old infant is far less aware than a rabbit or mouse. A fertilized egg, of course, is no more than any other bacteria etc. So I have no conflict with abortion at any stage. Putting a "stop" at birth, then, is purely arbitrary and is 100% about appeasing base primitive instincts of the people around.

In fact, from a moral and ethical stance, I am far more troubled by an expressed interest in a seemingly desire to suppress the freedom of expression, etc., in young women by imposing restraints on what they can wear. When you get down to it, it is this Nick and people like him who seem to be asserting and inserting an unavoidable sexual nature and value to clothing. It's their hangup, not the kids that causes a problem. Should people like that get their return to Gilead we can fully expect an increased presence of frustration, aggression, violence, suicides, etc. I have no trouble seeing Nick and others like him as angry, frustrated, even hate-filled people so how can he expect I or any others would want to live like him or adopt his views? They don't seem to be making his life better or happier and I also don't see these views as being any more rational or moral, etc.

I have no anger hate, or frustration over the human condition. What can i do? I learn about it and strive to understand why we cannot be considered human in a psychological sense so have created an absurd worldly situation. Should I be angry about the fact that what goes up must come down? Why not learn why it happens.

Making money in fashion in modern times requires sex appeal. Young girls are indoctrinated to exaggerate it. The problem is that the kids sre bombarded with it and a girl is judged by her clothes and the quality of her behind. Do you really believe this is good thing and promotes education much less the purpose and value of the sex act.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Respectfully I think you are confused on a number of points. First, while I am open to the validity of some religious ideas, I don't count the Middle Eastern, Abrahamic religions as being all that relevant. So your citing of Ecclesiastes has as much weight to me as the Bagivadgita or Egyptian Book of the Dead. Second, you are conflating the recognition of life with a lot of other things. A fetus may be alive even though not self sustaining as are pigs, cows, moose and even bacteria. Does your setting of mouse traps or using an antibacterial soap mean you do not value life? Finally, I think if you really want to avoid inevitable cycles, try learning. Sticking with old philosophies and uninformed values is the problem.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Forest_Dump » March 16th, 2019, 1:39 pm wrote:Respectfully I think you are confused on a number of points. First, while I am open to the validity of some religious ideas, I don't count the Middle Eastern, Abrahamic religions as being all that relevant. So your citing of Ecclesiastes has as much weight to me as the Bagivadgita or Egyptian Book of the Dead. Second, you are conflating the recognition of life with a lot of other things. A fetus may be alive even though not self sustaining as are pigs, cows, moose and even bacteria. Does your setting of mouse traps or using an antibacterial soap mean you do not value life? Finally, I think if you really want to avoid inevitable cycles, try learning. Sticking with old philosophies and uninformed values is the problem.

It isn't a matter of belief but of verification

Ecclesistes 3:

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance,5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,6 a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away,7 a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak,8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

You have to verify if earthly existence moves in cycles. Why deny it on principle?

The question which is impossible to discuss so has to be reduced to an oddity is if there is an objective difference between a fetus a day before birth and three day old baby that deserves protection? We cannot answer the question so do everything to avoid it. It isn't a matter of arguing right or wrong but of verifying our collective ignorance as it pertains to the nature of the human condition which prevents higher understanding. Socrates admitted it when he said "I know nothing."Can science verify why we know nothing? No. So the intolerable question is how to realistically become able to understand. Apparently only a few have the courage, need, will, and stability to deal with this elementary question so everything repeats. Welcome to the human condition.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Thank you so much for sharing the wisdom you have acquired on your bold explorations of our collective ignorance.

But you need to respond to challenges and direct questions from other posters. E.g. Forest's...

"Does your setting of mouse traps or using an antibacterial soap mean you do not value life?"

Paul posed a similar point much earlier. Do you ever wear leather, or eat animal protein? If so, do lives of some species not matter to you? As both Paul and Forest noted, a cow is more sentient than a newborn or late term fetus. Where is your feeling for the cow's suffering and slaughter? For its life as a free creature that can roam in the way natural to its species? Late term abortion is quite rare, but penning, tormenting, and killing cows is quite common and happens millions of times a week. Where's your outrage for that? Science has developed foods that have all the amino acids, and entail no suffering to sentient creatures - why not eat those foods and stop the animal Holocaust?

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

But you need to respond to challenges and direct questions from other posters. E.g. Forest's...

"Does your setting of mouse traps or using an antibacterial soap mean you do not value life?"

Paul posed a similar point much earlier. Do you ever wear leather, or eat animal protein? If so, do lives of some species not matter to you? As both Paul and Forest noted, a cow is more sentient than a newborn or late term fetus. Where is your feeling for the cow's suffering and slaughter? For its life as a free creature that can roam in the way natural to its species? Late term abortion is quite rare, but penning, tormenting, and killing cows is quite common and happens millions of times a week. Where's your outrage for that? Science has developed foods that have all the amino acids, and entail no suffering to sentient creatures - why not eat those foods and stop the animal Holocaust?

Why be outraged? What good does it do? Why not try to reason beyond the superficial? Does respect for life mean we shouldn't consume it or protect ourselves from it? Only the outraged will take such a position.

We kill mice and mosquitoes but does that mean we don't value mosquitoes as a life source for other animals? Nature is a balance. Respect for life refers to individual creatures, a species, and the balance of organic life as a whole.

The key IMO are the motivations for our reaction. Why do we kill? A person has to ask themselves this question. Some Indian tribes were more advanced than us since they respected the kill. It was eaten, worn, and bones used as tools. They respected the kill. Do we respect what happens to chickens and cows in captivity? No. Can synthetic foods replace natural foods? I don't believe so long term since natural foods have certain ingredients not in synthetic foods. Organic life on earth is a living machine which eats itself and reproduces in order to serve its purpose. We don't respect it since we don't understand it.

Why not kill an animal for pleasure? People do it all the time. Why not kill a fetus for pleasure or convenience? We do it all the time. Forget about outrage. Why don't we have respect for life as an individual, a species, and part of an interacting organic whole serving a purpose. why are we closed to its purpose? That is the question which is avoided at all cost. This doesn't require wisdom but just admitting that like Socrates, we know nothing but with the potential to grow in understanding. But how many even know how to begin? We prefer to be outraged and argue. How can this lead to understanding?

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Obviously I am not outraged by abortion and personally see no reason why I should be. I agree that there is very little difference between a fetus and a three day old infant and that the legal distinction is purely arbitrary. However I do believe the formation of neural nets does start forming at birth so setting the legal distinction at that point errs well on the side of caution so there is as good a point as any. And it avoids unnecessary trauma on surrounding adults who of course have an instinctive urge to protect something that looks like a helpless baby human. I think lots of science and empirical data does make it clear what infant brain development is all about but I do also get that tens or hundreds of millions of years of development of protective instincts can't be totally ignored.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Forest_Dump » March 16th, 2019, 8:46 pm wrote:Obviously I am not outraged by abortion and personally see no reason why I should be. I agree that there is very little difference between a fetus and a three day old infant and that the legal distinction is purely arbitrary. However I do believe the formation of neural nets does start forming at birth so setting the legal distinction at that point errs well on the side of caution so there is as good a point as any. And it avoids unnecessary trauma on surrounding adults who of course have an instinctive urge to protect something that looks like a helpless baby human. I think lots of science and empirical data does make it clear what infant brain development is all about but I do also get that tens or hundreds of millions of years of development of protective instincts can't be totally ignored.

That is the point. We accept arbitrary definitions on the value of life. If a mugger attacks a woman and kills a fetus within her it is called fetal homicide. It is an abortion if she decides to have it killed. The fetus or baby has no objective life value. It is the same with an adult. Adults only have value if society says they do. That was Hitler’s argument. He claimed Jews have no objective value so just kill them.

This may seem normal to you but the essence of philosophy is forced to question it as soon as a person asks “who am I.” The answer must be that you are a meaningless automaton if life has no objective meaning or purpose. Anything else is purely imagination.

The question of the thread asks if life does have objective value, why doesn’t society feel it and create a culture which respects the life cycle beginning with conception and ending in death? It is enough to admit that we don’t know and become open to the possibility that we can begin to understand.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

It would be nice if you got down to the bottom of this and started a new thread? Perhaps one regarding Platonism and/or what we mean by “life” and “origins”.

It seems to me a lot of what you’re conveying is being overrun by some personal dislike of the current law regarding abortion. I can concede easily enough that it is not an wasy decision for most women and that it iis better for women not to have themselves in such a situation.

I can sympathise a little with what you’re saying in opposition to Forests comments. I prefer to look at brain development. Once the nervous system is connected I would say a “life” (a conscious being) is created. Yet, it seems very much like in the early stages once these connections are made, that it is not a simple and measureable “on” switch. Humans are not like light bulbs so I can understand how disconcerting this can be for pregnant women who respect life and yet don’t wish to start a family in an intolerable (far less than satifactory) situation.

Looking to scientific data and understanding to help us get a better picture of what is going on can be very disturbing. I do certainly sympathise with the idea that sometimes people are prone to “opting out” of the moral choice in favour of a purely logical one. I would call the combination of the two the decision of “wisdom”. The difficulty still remains that no matter the choice we make in any given situation we make the choice knowing that we cannot truly know the overall outcome.

From here you could perhaps set aside this topic and ask questions about something with a more solid “philosophical” basis - such as Socrates words through Plato about what justice means. The Republic is a great piece of writing with which to unearth some of the embedded problems with framing what is or isn’t “justice”.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

I think we can recraft this topic without getting directly into the issue of abortion. We will keep the question of the arbitrary nature of the boundary of birth but instead talk about alcohol consumption. I suspect virtually everyone would agree that we would not feed a newborn booze nor anyone under some given age. And we know that when pregnant women drink they damage the development of the fetus and often impose a cost on society by producing children with FASD. So, how do we address this given that children are bonus the way every day despite efforts at education. Can we pass a law jailing pregnant women if they drink? Do we incarcerate them until they deliver? Or, given that there would be obvious constitutional issues of enacting a law that was so blatantly directed at one sex, do we simply go back to temperance for all?

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Why be outraged? What good does it do? Why not try to reason beyond the superficial? Does respect for life mean we shouldn't consume it or protect ourselves from it? Only the outraged will take such a position.

We kill mice and mosquitoes but does that mean we don't value mosquitoes as a life source for other animals? Nature is a balance. Respect for life refers to individual creatures, a species, and the balance of organic life as a whole.

The key IMO are the motivations for our reaction. Why do we kill? A person has to ask themselves this question. Some Indian tribes were more advanced than us since they respected the kill. It was eaten, worn, and bones used as tools. They respected the kill....

- NICK

Nick, I was speaking ironically, which I guess wasn't clear. That outrage is pointless, and often hypocritical, was exactly the point i was making. And yes, killing to consume other living creatures in order to survive is very much part of the life of the omnivore species. But ethics, as you seem to understand, often seeks value beyond just the simple formulae of what is practical for survival in a primitive context. As social animals who can develop what is called a theory of mind, i.e. we understand that other beings feel and may have inner lives, we tend to elevate values like compassion, and the rights of others to not be made miserable or have their lives taken away from them.

In this regard, abortion of a viable baby may, as FG observed, trigger greater suffering in us than it does in a neo-natal being whose awareness is so rudimentary. Our compassionate sense is harmed. While objective assessment of life outcome might suggest things are better for the aborted one, that's an assessment so liable to error and blind assumption about "quality of life" that we sense, as moral agents, that it's better to err on the side of caution.

One might also apply a Rawlsian test here, and ask what if we were about to be reincarnated into a life where we were an unwanted pregnancy, or a third world country where life would be hard? Would we wish to have the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to live? Would a society that assumed our sentience be a better one for us to live in? These John Rawls sorts of questions are part of why I personally reject late term abortion, except where there is anencephaly or some other condition that would greatly reduce any chance of a full life.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Why be outraged? What good does it do? Why not try to reason beyond the superficial? Does respect for life mean we shouldn't consume it or protect ourselves from it? Only the outraged will take such a position.

We kill mice and mosquitoes but does that mean we don't value mosquitoes as a life source for other animals? Nature is a balance. Respect for life refers to individual creatures, a species, and the balance of organic life as a whole.

The key IMO are the motivations for our reaction. Why do we kill? A person has to ask themselves this question. Some Indian tribes were more advanced than us since they respected the kill. It was eaten, worn, and bones used as tools. They respected the kill....

- NICK

Nick, I was speaking ironically, which I guess wasn't clear. That outrage is pointless, and often hypocritical, was exactly the point i was making. And yes, killing to consume other living creatures in order to survive is very much part of the life of the omnivore species. But ethics, as you seem to understand, often seeks value beyond just the simple formulae of what is practical for survival in a primitive context. As social animals who can develop what is called a theory of mind, i.e. we understand that other beings feel and may have inner lives, we tend to elevate values like compassion, and the rights of others to not be made miserable or have their lives taken away from them.

In this regard, abortion of a viable baby may, as FG observed, trigger greater suffering in us than it does in a neo-natal being whose awareness is so rudimentary. Our compassionate sense is harmed. While objective assessment of life outcome might suggest things are better for the aborted one, that's an assessment so liable to error and blind assumption about "quality of life" that we sense, as moral agents, that it's better to err on the side of caution.

One might also apply a Rawlsian test here, and ask what if we were about to be reincarnated into a life where we were an unwanted pregnancy, or a third world country where life would be hard? Would we wish to have the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to live? Would a society that assumed our sentience be a better one for us to live in? These John Rawls sorts of questions are part of why I personally reject late term abortion, except where there is anencephaly or some other condition that would greatly reduce any chance of a full life.

I cannot seem to explain what I mean by respect for life and finally admit that we don't have it.

What is the most important part of a circle? If we admit that a circle is an important idea, which part of it is most important? Obviously it is a silly question because a circle by definition is complete not existing in sections . To remove a part just destroys the meaning of a circle.

Respect for the life cycle i like this. Of course we can argue about when abortions are warranted but the point I'm making is that without becoming able to FEEL respect for life as a whole, all decisions will be arbitrary and pragmatic. The life cycle is like a circle. We either respect it in the context of objective values or we don't. If society as a whole had a greater respect for life, there would be less abortions. since we don't abortions are a norm.

That is what the Beauty thread is about. It includes objective values. If a person FEELs objective values it means their conscience has awakened to some degree. For these people respect for the life cycle is a norm. The problem seems to be that they are few and far between. Most prefer to sacrifice it for financial and/or pragmatic interests.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Indeed. While I can't say I spend much time worrying about what might have been thought around the Mediterranean thousands of years ago I would say I have a tremendous respect for life and think I have a very well developed moral and ethical code. In fact I am very busy doing my best to preserve and improve life for a lot of people, especially young people, everyday. In fact, i get paid under a "choose life" program. But that doesn't mean I am vegan or have any opposition to women's right to choose.

When we reach the highest potential for human love then we will have respect for life

6. Beauty itself–that is, the Form of the Beautiful. This is described as “an everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor goes, which neither flowers nor fades.” It is the very essence of beauty, “subsisting of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness.” And every particular beautiful thing is beautiful because of its connection to this Form. The lover who has ascended the ladder apprehends the Form of Beauty in a kind of vision or revelation, not through words or in the way that other sorts of more ordinary knowledge are known.Diotima tells Socrates that if he ever reached the highest rung on the ladder and contemplated the Form of Beauty, he would never again be seduced by the physical attractions of beautiful youths. Nothing could make life more worth living than enjoying this sort of vision. Because the Form of Beauty is perfect, it will inspire perfect virtue in those who contemplate it.

All I'm pointing out is how far we are from our potential to experience the love of life and respect for life as a whole. We live as potentials for what human being is capable of.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Forest_Dump » March 17th, 2019, 5:56 pm wrote: Can we pass a law jailing pregnant women if they drink? Do we incarcerate them until they deliver? Or, given that there would be obvious constitutional issues of enacting a law that was so blatantly directed at one sex, do we simply go back to temperance for all?

Forest,

I am totally open to saying that abortion is an unethical act, and it should therefore be rare. Late-term abortion is a highly unethical act. (And of course, straight-up infanticide is a criminal act.)

If you adopt a position that late-term abortions are fine, without stigma or guilt, and should be handed out like candy to any pregnant woman who shows up at the front office, you will do nothing but play into Nick_A's hands. I would like to see you try to meet me halfway on this. Abortion is not desirable. It should be avoided.

I will meet you halfway. I am a staunch unbending supporter of chemical miscarriage drugs like RU-486 (the so-called "morning-after pill". I hope to bring this up later for reasons we will soon see. )

We have doctors on Twitter saying that they never in their professional career have they been approached by any pregnant woman who sought a late-term abortion for "elective reasons". In every single case, without exception, they sought a late-term abortion because of a severe medical problem with the pregnancy.

In. Every. Case.

We may be dealing with an internet poster here , Nick_A who believes these late-term procedures should be absolutely outlawed. Any doctor that tries to do it FOR ANY REASON is charged with Murder 1 , literally premeditated infanticide. This poster has said secular society has quote "no respect for life" and has decreed that "Life has no objective value". He has then made wild posts that contain the word "infanticide" and he even warned that the society is primed to engage in "genocide"!

Your reaction to this poster is to talk about the development of neural nets in infants? Seriously? We need to start over. We need a different approach to this person.

forum : Which specific person here said they have no respect for life?

Nick_A : "Why do we say life has no objective value?"

forum : Who said that?

Nick_A : "Secularism says it."

forum : Is "secularism" the name of a person who posts here?

Every time I’ve asked what the objective meaning and purpose of our universe is and Man within it, the question is either avoided or posters say there is no objective meaning and purpose. If it has no objective meaning and purpose it has no objective value.

Nick_A : "Why don't you see or recognize any value in life?"

forum : Who here said they do not value life?

We create subjective values and value life by subjective pragmatic standards. Man made subjective values are not the same as universal objective values.

Nick_A : "You don't have any respect for life."

forum : Which specific person here said they have no respect for life?

If we lack objective values and an appreciation for the meaning and purpose of universal existence, how can we have an objective love of and respect for life as a whole? We can’t as long as we are limited to secular beliefs.

We cannot answer the question of the thread using subjective opinions, values and societal laws. They will create a myriad of opinions but no understanding. It seems to me that we fight against opening to the human potential to experience objective values and the path to freedom from the confines of Plato's cave.. This refusal is considered a sign of intelligence in the modern world. Without good scotch this can never make sense.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Forest_Dump » March 17th, 2019, 5:56 pm wrote: Can we pass a law jailing pregnant women if they drink? Do we incarcerate them until they deliver? Or, given that there would be obvious constitutional issues of enacting a law that was so blatantly directed at one sex, do we simply go back to temperance for all?

Forest,

I am totally open to saying that abortion is an unethical act, and it should therefore be rare. Late-term abortion is a highly unethical act. (And of course, straight-up infanticide is a criminal act.)

If you adopt a position that late-term abortions are fine, without stigma or guilt, and should be handed out like candy to any pregnant woman who shows up at the front office, you will do nothing but play into Nick_A's hands. I would like to see you try to meet me halfway on this. Abortion is not desirable. It should be avoided.

I will meet you halfway. I am a staunch unbending supporter of chemical miscarriage drugs like RU-486 (the so-called "morning-after pill". I hope to bring this up later for reasons we will soon see. )

We have doctors on Twitter saying that they never in their professional career have they been approached by any pregnant woman who sought a late-term abortion for "elective reasons". In every single case, without exception, they sought a late-term abortion because of a severe medical problem with the pregnancy.

In. Every. Case.

We may be dealing with an internet poster here , Nick_A who believes these late-term procedures should be absolutely outlawed. Any doctor that tries to do it FOR ANY REASON is charged with Murder 1 , literally premeditated infanticide. This poster has said secular society has quote "no respect for life" and has decreed that "Life has no objective value". He has then made wild posts that contain the word "infanticide" and he even warned that the society is primed to engage in "genocide"!

Your reaction to this poster is to talk about the development of neural nets in infants? Seriously? We need to start over. We need a different approach to this person.

Why the hostility? I posted a simple question to prove that as we are we cannot answer it. The fallen human condition prevents it. This is basic philosophy. It should raise the question of why we have become closed to the experience of universal meaning and purpose. But it rarely does. If we lack the objective respect for life, why argue against genocides when it can be asserted that those people need killing. The key to survival then is how to avoid becoming one of "those people?"

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

If we lack objective values and an appreciation for the meaning and purpose of universal existence, how can we have an objective love of and respect for life as a whole? We can’t as long as we are limited to secular beliefs.

The only people I know who use the phrase "secular beliefs" are Rick Santorum , Mike Huckabee, and hosts of the 700 Club. They use it as a dog whistle to fellow evangelicals in the audience. Phrases like "Secular beliefs" is a nudge-nudge-wink to their fellow Christians that "We all know everything outside the church is corrupted by the forces of evil." These are the people who, for instance, home-school their kids to keep them away from the corrupting influences of Secular society. These are people who disallow their children from consuming certain kinds of television and rock music because that stuff us "possessed of Satan".

Anyways that's the story of that phrase from my side of the universe. If you are posting to us from a seminary, I apologize for the confusion.

When I query you about what you mean by "secular" you start quoting portions of Plato's Republic. What the connection is is completely mysterious. The word "secular" and "Secularism" appears nowhere in those quotes.

You should start getting really specific about what you mean when you say "secular beliefs". It is my firm hope that you will actually refer to some extant person on this forum having a "Secular belief". If not that, then refer some actual living person in the world who has "secular beliefs". I do hope your answer is not just quoting random passages of Plato again.

We create subjective values and value life by subjective pragmatic standards. Man made subjective values are not the same as universal objective values.

You are under an obligation here to describe what this phenomenon of "universal objective values" means as a phenomenon in the universe we inhabit. You cannot presume in a place like this that you can create spontaneous neologisms and expect everyone to suddenly agree with your poetry.

Every time I’ve asked what the objective meaning and purpose of our universe is and Man within it, the question is either avoided or posters say there is no objective meaning and purpose. If it has no objective meaning and purpose it has no objective value.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

If I were to ask newbies to read Forum Guidelines (in the announcement forum), it might save some trouble later. Nick, read the whole thing and see if you can follow the rules most specific to PCF. If not, then we'll have to conclude it's not quite the right venue for you.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

TheVat » March 21st, 2019, 10:19 am wrote:If I were to ask newbies to read Forum Guidelines (in the announcement forum), it might save some trouble later. Nick, read the whole thing and see if you can follow the rules most specific to PCF. If not, then we'll have to conclude it's not quite the right venue for you.

I was curious to see how long it would take before the “corrupting the youth of Athens” would appear. Well it didn’t take that long. Here are the PCF guidelines

Posting in the Philosophy Section (PCF)

PCF takes "philosophy" in broad terms and covers all aspects of human experience. Philosophical discussions should proceed by reason and example. Users should be ready to support their claims.

I always do. The question of beauty for example includes examples and reason.

We seek to provide a forum for you to explore your ideas. However, it is expected that you be willing to explain why you believe what you believe. Preaching, dogmatic assertions, circular arguments, rambling and other forms of unresponsive speech are not consistent with the ideal of ongoing discourse.

It is one thing to explain a line of reasoning but quite another for a person to be open to it. When a line of reasoning is emotionally denied, there is no way to proceed other than to admit the power of emotional denial.

Some discussions will proceed more casually. However, more rigorous discussions are encouraged. As such more rigorous standards may be applied in some sub forums or threads at a moderator's discretion or a poster's request. In such cases keep in mind the following:

Emotional denial will always oppose the awakening value of philosophy. Certain ideas are intolerable where the reality of the human condition is denied

a) When you assert a position on something, you must be prepared to demonstrate basic scholarship behind that position. It's okay if you aren't prepared to write a review article, but you should be prepared to provide up to date references beyond wikipedia or a blog. If you have a mathematical claim, you must be able to provide a proof or derivation, or citation, recognizably correct by someone with a mathematics degree. If you have a claim based on statistics, you should likewise be prepared to give a reputable source, such as a journal article or government report to serve as the basis of your claim. Finally, if you have a position on a subject in mainstream philosophy, you should be aware of some of the literature others have written.

Do I really have to provide the credentials for Plato, Simone Weil, Jacob Needleman and Basarab Nicolescu.

b) Furthermore, scholarship should be up to date. While it may be interesting to consider what Galileo or Locke thought about a problem in either physics or theory of mind, these perspectives are now rightly understood to be historical. If one is discussing some subject matter with which they profess expertise, they must be acquainted with some of the contemporary research into these subjects. It is a moot point that there are many new ideas and problems unimagined by the historical thinkers, and these are now commonplace in mainstream academia.

c) Be willing to admit that you are wrong. There is no vice in admitting one is in error. It isn't humanly possible to be right all the time anyway.

It isn’t a matter of right and wrong but having an open mind. You tell me, what is the “right “ way to appreciate Plotinus’ concept of the ONE? When we don’t know we shout it down as disturbing the peace.

a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.8); for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.8). This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

Apparently you are right. The negative attitudes I am experiencing towards the great ideas of the past suggest that this is not the right venue for me. They disturb the peace.

No harm no foul. I tried and it didn’t work. I’ll find forum in which people are open to what is meant by Plotinus’ ONE, Plato’s Good, and the ineffable Source written of by those like Spinoza, Simone Weil, and Einstein. It serves as the premise from which philosophy can be pursued by deductive reason as well as inductive reason. I’ll gladly support such a forum even if it means chipping in a few bucks. There is no sense in continuing when What I know of as the purpose of philosophy or “remembrance” only disturbs the peace. Sleep well.